SPE-188555-MS

Enhanced Oil Recovery in a High Stratigraphic Complex Reservoir: Casabe

Project Case Study

Thaer Gheneim and Annalyn Azancot, Schlumberger; Tito Acosta, Jose Francisco Zapata, Carlos Chaparro,
Adriano Lobo, Ana María Jimenez, and Gerson Perez, Ecopetrol

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 13-16 November 2017.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Casabe field reservoir characteristics are multilayer, geological complexity, vertical/areal heterogeneity and
commingled production. Due large difference in mobility between oil and water (M ~ 20) and the maturity
of water flooding, several operational problems have arisen, such as, increase of water cut, channeling, sand
production, etc. These problems together with the high remaining reserves and identification of bypassed
oil, were the main reasons to evaluate EOR process as a solution to increase the recovery factor.
A reduced Cycle Time was created to reduce the time from design to full field implementation
which involves the following phases: Screening/Conceptual Design, Pilot Design, Drilling-Workover and
Facilities, Operation & Surveillance, Pilot Expansion, Full Field Development Plan, Reserves & FID. This
strategy is based on multitask parallel process to allow fast track decision making and activities execution
for a fast pilot implementation, which allowed to implement the EOR pilot in 24 months form the screening
to pilot Operation & Surveillance. After the screening, polymer flooding was considered for mobility ratio
modification to improve sweep efficiency and therefore increase RF.
The best producer layers were selected, based on the areal continuity and residual oil in place, as target
sands for polymer injection. One pattern was selected for the pilot. Laboratory tests, along with reservoir
simulation confirmed the potential of chemical EOR in the selected sands and pilot area. Polymer injection
was performed in four injector wells of the selected pattern. The polymer flooding process was monitored
in the central producer and in the eight producers of the second line.
A surveillance plan was implemented to collect the information required to evaluate, with the lowest
uncertainty, the results of this pilot. An observation well was drilled to monitored changes in oil
saturation. The surveillance plan was critical to be able to control the polymer injection process, to have
a proper technical evaluation of the pilot and to optimize costs during the future expansion and full field
implementation. Polymer flooding have increased the RF on the selected area.
The fast-tracking strategy for an EOR project execution was successfully implemented in Casabe Field
and the pilot was delivered in 2 years proving the concept of 5-year road map it is possible. The reduced
Cycle Time (5-year Road Map) could be used as reference for implementation of new EOR pilots in other
fields in shorter time and optimizing resources.
2 SPE-188555-MS

The workflows used and the analysis procedures created for this pilot could be used as reference for the
implementation of future pilots in fields with similar characteristics.

Introduction
Casabe field was discovered by Shell in 1941, is located on Mid-Magdalena Valley basin. Producing
formations consist in fluvial sands with vertical and lateral heterogenenity. With around 1.700 producer
wells drilled, the field, has accumulated over 350 MMstb by July 2017. The productive formations, from
bottom to top are La Paz, Mugrosa, and Colorado, with depths ranging between 2,200 and 5,500 ft.
The production reached 46,000 bopd in 1953 under primary depletion mechanism. The field was reverted
to Colombia government in 1974 before the original concession expired and has been in Ecopetrol hands
since then. Recovery factor at that time was in the order of 11%. Current recovery factor is estimate in 19%
of OOIP. Water injection is operating, since 1980’s, under adverse mobility ratios (M > 20) due to crude
oil viscosity (40 - 100 cP) at reservoir conditions.
With the opening of oil industry to private investments in late 1990s and early 2000s, Casabe Alliance,
a Technological Cooperation Agreement between Ecopetrol and Schlumberger, was successfully create in
2004. This new association entails the innovative approach of joining efforts between a NOC and a Service
Company in maximizing value from Casabe and adjacent fields. Together, the Partners develop plans to
maximize reserves recovery and execute them to increment production. In that process, new technologies
and strategies are implemented. On the waterflooding side, the successful introduction of new technologies
and processes, especially selective injection, led to a great success raising the production and recovery factor
dramatically. As of today, Casabe production has increased fivefold from the beginning of the Alliance.
With the objective of maximizing recovery factor of the field, an ambitious EOR project launched by
mid-2012. Different EOR technologies were evaluated and two of them were selected to be pilot. The
objective of these pilots was to identify the optimum EOR technique for maximizing recovery at lowest
costs through a reduced cycle time to full field implementation.

General Description of the Field

Casabe field is located in the Mid-Magdalena Valley basin in Colombia, adjacent to the Magdalena river, as
shown in Figure 1. The geologic formations related to oil production are aged Tertiary in Colombia. They
correspond to La Paz (Lower Tertiary) or C-sands; Mugrosa (Lower to middle Tertiary) or B-sands, and
Colorado (Middle Tertiary) or A-sands. The structure is an asymmetrical anticline with moderate dip to the
east, affected by transpresional faults both in the Cretaceous and in the Paleocene. These transpresional faults
produce both normal and reverse faults defining the operational blocks of the field, as shown schematically
in Figure 2. Table 1 shows the average rock properties.
SPE-188555-MS 3

Figure 1—Casabe Field Location

Figure 2—Schematic of the Casabe field structure interpretation from seismic.

Table 1—Basic properties of the Casabe field.

The distribution of geological faults in the electrical logs led to the division of the field into eight
operational blocks, with Block I located at the southern end and Block VIII at the northern end of the field.
Block VI, located in the central part, is the block with the largest volume of reserves per the volumetric
studies performed
4 SPE-188555-MS

Figure 3—Casabe Field Operational Blocks

The the fluids properties were estimated based on the PVT information available for the field, consisting
of four usable fluid samples from a total of ten PVT analysis reported in digital format. All the analysis
were performed on samples collected in separator and recombined in laboratory. All fluid samples were
collected between years 1946 and 1952. Tables 2 and 3.

Table 2—PVT properties of Casabe field Oil.

Table 3—Formation Water properties for Casabe field.

The field produced under primary mechanisms since its discovery in 1941 until 1985 in the northern area
and 1989 in the southern area. These two dates correspond to the start of the waterflooding process in these
areas of the field, respectively.
The waterflooding is conducted with regular 5-spot patterns with up to four wells per injection location.
Injector wells are completed with a selective injection string which allows to regulate, control and measure
the injection rate in each group though water flow regulator valves. Producer wells are completed with
progressive cavity pumps or sucker rod pumps and they produce in commigled from different layers. PCP
SPE-188555-MS 5

and SRP completion do not allow to perform convention production logging, therefore there is a uncentainty
in the production distribution by layer (Figure 4)

Figure 4—Production-injection scheme in the Casabe field.

EOR Pilot Project

Because of the large difference in mobility between oil and water in Casabe (mobility ratio of ~ 20) and the
maturity of water flooding, several operational concerns are arising in the field such as: increase of the water
cut, water channeling and recirculation, increasing volume of produced sand, etc. These issues are becoming
more and more limitations for the continuation of conventional water flooding. These issues coupled with
the high remaining reserves makes Alliance Casabe to decide to evaluated enhanced oil recovery (EOR)
process to increase recovery factor on Casabe Field Reservoirs.

Figure 5—Mobility Ratio

To implement this EOR pilot in Casabe Field, Alliance Casabe worked with a 5-year roadmap that
involves the following phases:
1. Screenig/Conceptual Design
2. Pilot Design
3. Pilot Drilling/Work Over and Facilities Installation
4. Pilot Operation & Surveillance
5. Pilot Expansion
6. Full Field Development Plan
7. Reserves & Final Investment Decision
6 SPE-188555-MS

Figure 6—5 year EOR Cycle Time Diagram

Screening
Screening phase for Casabe Field Reservoirs started in November 2012 to identify the optimum EOR
technique for Maximizing Recovery at lowest UTC and recommend reduced cycle time to full field
implementation.
At this stage, EORt (Enhanced Oil Recovery Decision Tool) and process-based, interactively guided tool
was used to enable detailed data and reservoir evaluation to select the best suited EOR technique for the
conditions of Casabe field. The conclusion of the screenig phase was that Polymer and ASP Flooding were
the best-suited EOR methods for Casabe, Colorado formation A2 Sands.
The results of the screening suggested Polymer and ASP as the most likey EOR options for the Colorado
formation, yielding a high local-displacement-efficiency (pore level) as well as being consistent with EOR
techniques applied to similar fields worldwide. Horsefly Lake in Alberta is the closest analog for the field
(undergoing Polymer Injection), followed by Huabei field in China (undergoing ASP).
Gas displacements had, as expected, a poorer performance in Casabe given the reservoir oil viscosity
(40cp), miscibility to CO2 and N2 is unlikely to be achieved in the field (based on current reservoir pressure
400-1500psi, temperature 116F, and API gravity 21). WAG processes rank 6th after chemical flooding
yielding an LDE of 0.27-0.30 (for different endpoints).

Table 4—EORt Screening Results

SPE-188555-MS 7

Ecopetrol corporate ecoEOR tool (Binary screening, recovery and EOR field implementation
benchmarking and analogies.) was also run as the screening tool.
For each of these technologies a deep analysis was carried out integrating the specific properties of the
field and the analysis of the field production and injection history. In this way, a result was obtained that
indicates the viability of the polymer injection in Colorado formation.

Table 5—ecoEOR result for Casabe field A2 and A2i sands.

Figure 7 shows radar-plot, comparing six reservoir variables of Casabe field (solid line) with some
international polymer injection (pilot and/or full-field) projects. Here, the reservoir under evaluation lies
within several projects with similar properties and so preliminarily passes polymer injection applicability.

Figure 7—Radar Plot

Casabe reservoirs show large heterogeneity, laterally and vertically due to the depositional environment
consisting in a complex stack of channels. To have a controlled pilot that can be adequately modelled, it
was recommended doing it in continuous sand, and in this case, the most adequate reservoir to run an EOR
pilot was A2 sands formation due to its quality (good reservoir properties) and its lateral continuity. The
other significant reason to run the pilot in A2 sands is that it contains 25% of the total Casabe STOIIP in
only two stratigraphic units. Figure 8 illustrates STOIIP distribution in Casabe by stratigraphic unit.
8 SPE-188555-MS

Figure 8—STOIIP by Sand Level III

Conceptual Design
The conceptual design of the project was drive by the strategy of carry out multiple pilots to cover individual
recovery needs and capture the lateral heterogeneity of the reservoir by doing one pilot in average rock
quality and one in the best rock quality reservoirs.
For the Improved Recovery Effectiveness using Chemical (cEOR) the injection was designed to be
performed in the four injector wells of each pattern. Enhanced Oil Recovery should be observed mainly
in the central production well, but also in the eight producers of the second line. The Figure 9 indicates
the conceptual design.

Figure 9—Patterns Description

A complete set of laboratory studies were performed to select the optimum EOR agents (Polymer and
Surfactant) for Casabe reservoir.
Laboratory studies included:

• HD Full core tomography of A2 sands core.

• Routine Core Analysis (RCA)

• Special Core Analysis (SCAL)

• Produced and Injected Water Characterization

SPE-188555-MS 9

• Produced Oil Characterization

• Rheology Test for Polymers Selection

• Phase Behavior for Surfactants Selection

• Coreflooding for both Polymer and Surfactants Floods

• Digital Rock for EOR Process Evaluation

Figure 10—Digital Rock

Due the uncosolidated nature of sands in Casebe field plug selection was performed using High Density
Scan. That allow the selection of plug without core casing opening and cut the plugs maintaning sand
integrity. Figure 11 shows High Density Scan for plugs selection.

Figure 11—High Density Scan for plug Selection

Analitic Model
As part of the pilot's conceptual design, the production profiles were calculated using an analytical tool that
involves changes in fractional flow curve trends due to the process of changes in mobility. The profiles
consider the incremental oil due polymer injection central well and the eight peripheral producers at second
line.
This analytical model was calibrated with the operating conditions of the pilot area considering:

• Actual Pilot Area (Acres)

• Active/Inactive producer wells

• Improved injected water flow per well

10 SPE-188555-MS

• Operating efficiency

The results are sumarized in the following table:

Table 6—Analitical Model Results.

Simulation Model
The simulation model was made using a black oil fluid model. 86 wells, 30 producers and 56 injectors
located at the center of block VI.
The simulation grid built is described below:

• 71 × 85 × 1336 cells (~8 millons)

• 25m × 25m × 2.8 ft

• 708,374 Actives Cells

• 2 Fluid Regions

• A Sand (°API= 23.5; GOR =127)

• B/C Sands (°API= 24.1; GOR=293)

• 4 Rock Type (3 Reservoir + 1 No Reservoir)

• 3 Phases: Oil+Gas+Water

Figure 12—Grid of simulation model

SPE-188555-MS 11

History matching for block VI was performed using historical data for primary production stage and
waterflooding stage.

Figure 13—Block VI Oil history matching

Figure 14—Block VI Water history matching

After having the history matching three cases were analyzed to evaluate the polymer injection in the
study area:

• Five Spot Pattern (4 Injector, 1 Producer)

• Four Inverted Five Spot Patterns (4 Injectors, 9 Producers)

• Whole Sector Model (4 Polymer Injector, 9 Oil Producer, 16 Peripherical Water Injectors)
12 SPE-188555-MS

Figure 15—Sector Models Configuration

Prediction runs were performed to evaluate the performance of polymer injection under diferents
conditions. Several sensitivies were running to understand pilot performance:

• Polymer Slug Size

• Slug Concentration

• Polymer parameters

• Injection Pressure

• Bottom Hole Pressure (BHP)

• Injection Rate

• Liquid Rate

Pilot Design
Once the EOR process and the area of implementation was selected. The final design of the pilot is prepared
based on reservoir enginering, detailed geology studies, operational contrains, well completion, etc. This
final design considers all the subsurface and surface characteristics of the field to minimize time to prove
the concept of optimum recovery.
Additionally, in the pilot design phase, prediction of pilot outcomes, optimum injection profiles for proof
of concept in quickest timeframe, surveillance plan to prove concept and final cost estimation (AFE) are
some of the deliverables.
The selection of the pilot areas is based on criterias that guarantee the representativity of most of the
field and allow the correct evaluation and interpretation of the results of the application of the improved
recovery (EOR) processes.
The criteria used are:

• 4 <WOR ≤ 10.

• Mature Zone with Water Injection

• Remaining saturation of mobile oil.

• Rock quality medium to high.

SPE-188555-MS 13

• Sand continuity.

• Confined Zone.

• Mechanical Integrity

In addition, a vertical confinement criteria was selected to impact the reservoirs with better properties
in terms of continuity and original oil in place (OOIP). From this analysis, objective areas for the
implementation of the EOR pilot project were defined as areas A2 and A2i in block VI of the field.
For the selection of pilot areas, a methodology was applied based on several factors, which were carried
out simultaneously allowing the characterization and evaluation of the performance of the reservoir.
The diagnosis and selection of the area allowed identifying sectors with good potential or wells that do
not perform well, being able to postulate them as candidates for some type of treatment that increases the
recovery factor. The area selection process involved detailed Field / Block analysis, detailed analysis by
pattern and well-to-well detail. The scheme for the area selection methodology can be seen in Figure 16.

Figure 16—Pilot Area Selection

Figure 17—Block VI Pilot Area

14 SPE-188555-MS

Surveillance Plan
A very rigorous survaillance program was designed and implemented for proper monitoring of Casabe
EOR pilot. The monitoring plan was design to collect critical information for producer and injector wells to
calibrate properly the performance models and understand the well performance before and after de polymer
flooding and monitor key variables during EOR process.
During design phase of this pilot, it was noticed that some of the key parameters were well measured
and monitored, others were not measured at all and some were measured with very high uncertainty. Also,
the operational and completion constrains in Casabe field makes difficult to have some information such as
production profiles, productivity index per layer, bottom hole pressures, etc.
The main objective of this surveillance plan was to evaluate properly the results of the pilot to make
decisions about future expansion and field implementation, this involve the evaluation of the reservoir
and well conditions before implementing the pilot, the monitoring and control of key variables during the
execution and the evaluation of the effect of the pilot on the reservoir and wells behavior. To achieve this
objective was extremely important to understand the challenges of the reservoir, completion and production
conditions.
The surveillance plan could be divided in three phases:
1. Preparation and baseline
2. Monitoring during pilot
3. Pilot Evaluation
In the preparation and baseline phase, the objective was to understand the actual reservoir and well
behavior, to evaluate the mechanical conditions of the wells, identify production and injection enhancement
opportunities and preparation of a production/injection baseline. During this phase, casing integrity
evaluation was performed by running well integrity logs such as USIT and Multifinger, initial production
profiles were evaluated through the implementation of Slim electrosumbmersible pumps and bypass
systems, surface multiphase meters were introduced for well testing in order to build a production baseline,
injection profiles evaluation and optimization were done by the introduction of Digital Slickline technology,
also some acid stimulation jobs with CT were performed to restored formation injectivity. For reservoir
evaluation, initial oil saturation was measured by running RST-C/O logs and connectivity between wells
and channel sized were evaluated with Interwell tracers.
The objective during the pilot execution is to monitor and control key parameters to make decisions about
the injection process to ensure that injector and producer wells are operating at optimun conditions. A data
acquisition program was designed to be implemented to collect all the data required. (See Table 7)
SPE-188555-MS 15

Table 7—Data adquisition program

The pilot evaluation uses the information collected during the prevouis phases to prepare conclusions and
decide about pilot expansion or not. The data collected was used to update prevouis models and to simulate
and evaluate the chemical EOR process in the reservoir.
Several technologies related to reservoir and production monitoring were integrated and implemented
for the first time in Casabe field, such as: Multiphase flow meters, production logging, slim ESP and bypass
system (Y Tool), downhole pressure sensors, digital slickline, interwell tracers, RST for oil saturation
tracking, among others.

Fast Track Implementation Strategy

Based on the 5 year EOR Cycle Time (Road Map) a strategy that allows to implement a cEOR pilot in 18
– 24 months’ period form the screening to pilot Operation & Surveillance was perform.
This strategy is based on multitask parallel process to allows fast track decision making (EOR Agents
Selection, EOR Contractor, etc.) and executes several activities in parallel (Well Construction, Baseline
Construction, Facilities Design and Construction).
Using the synergy across different departments and segments within the organization, this strategy was
successfully used to implement the first chemical EOR pilot project in a SPM asset in the world.
The team to implement this Fast Track Strategy are:

• Project Manager

• Reservoir Engineer

• G&G

• Production Technologist

• Well Construction Engineer

• Facilities Engineer

• Production Optimization
16 SPE-188555-MS

• Economic Analyst

• Supply Chain Support

Figure 18—Fast tracking Strategy

Casabe EOR Pilot Project was delivered in 2 years proving the concept of 5-year road map it is possible
and was successfully implement.

Pilot Facilities
Polymer injection start in Noviembre 28 2014, in four polymer injector wells. Total injection capacity is
3.000 bpd of 500 ppm polymer solution at 2.000 psi.
Individual pump for each injector are used to allow control pressure individually. In the Figure 20 can
observed the control panel to operate each pump.

Figure 19—Polymer Mixing and Injection Unit

SPE-188555-MS 17

Figure 20—Polymer Unit Pump System

Figure 21—Polymer Unit Control Panel

The pilot has a polymer injection unit with individual pump for each well. The injection brine has low
TDS and polymer is a low molecular weight sulfonated polyacrylamide (5-8 million Dalton) with 500-700
ppm dosage.

Table 8—Injection and Produced Water Properties

18 SPE-188555-MS

Project Implementation
To reduce the uncertainties associated with the vertical production allocation, to avoid operational problems
associated with commingle injection and production, and to reach the maximum production potential of
the waterflooding, optimization activities were scheduled prior to the start of injection. Activities carried
out include drilling an observation well, interwell tracer’s injection, B sand isolation, and increasing fluid
extraction/injection into A2 sands.
Production wells and injectors optimization resulted in an increase in the production of the sector, which
evidences the opportunity for injection optimization processes. The figure below presents in green light the
incremental production associated with the optimization phase.

Figure 22—Production performance prior polymer injection

In August 2014, prior to polymer injection, Interwell tracers were injected selectively for A2i and
A2 sands in the 4 injector wells to identifying injected water channeling between injector and producer
wells within the sector, evaluate contacted pore volumes, analyze the internal structure of the channels
(i.e. conductive capacity vs. poral volume of each channel) and evaluate the percentage of injected water
recirculation and cycling times, both overall and in relation to each producer. The tracers allowed to
confirm the hydraulic communication between injectors and producers, and indicated the presence of high
conductivity flow channels between first and second line producers.
Diferent tracers (benzoic acids) was injected in each sand and well. Figure 23. From the results of tracer,
we concluded:

• InterWell Tracer Irruption observed on both sands A2 (Upper) and A2i (Lower)

• InterWell Tracers confirm Sand deposition direction.

• Irruption on 2nd line production wells confirm complex channeling system.

• Base on irruption times severe channeling is observed between CSBE 1222 (INY) and CSBE-1159
(Central Well)
SPE-188555-MS 19

Figure 23—Interwell Tracers Irruption Map

Injection performance
The polymer injection started in November 2014 in the four injection wells, simultaneously. Injection has
been affected by producing wells shut down, workovers, among others. In addition, during the closure of the
injector wells, there was evidence of sand deposition between the casing and the selective injection string
that negatively impacted the target flow per well and per layer. Figure 24 shows injection performance in
the pilot area. Injection incresead due thru tubing reperforating of obstructed intervals.

Figure 24—Injection performance

However, despite the efforts to guarantee the desired injection rate per zone, workover in producer wells
and sanding in injector wells continue. Below we can be observed actual flowrate vs. planed for each well
and layer in the pilot sector
20 SPE-188555-MS

Figure 25—Injection performance per well

Saturation evaluation
As part of the monitoring plan one observation well was drilled to evaluate the sweep efficiency of polymer
en A2/A2i sands. Time-lapse saturation logs have been run in the observation well to monitor oil saturation
on A2/A2i sands. Figure 27 shows RST logs for differents runs conducted at diferent times. Logs was run
every 6 months to cover different stages of polymer injection.

Figure 26—Well observation location

SPE-188555-MS 21

Figure 27—RST logs in observation wells

The logs show signigficant saturation increase after 6 months of polymer flooding, after 6 months
preferencial flow was observed. Channels with So reduction due polymer flood effect, oil is pushed to
neighbor wells. Aditionally channels with So increase due polymer flood effect, entrapment due to lack of
drainage points.

Results
Although injection rates per layer have remained mostly below the planned volumes, there is a high impact
in the reduction of the area water cut and incremental production associated to the injection of polymer from
February of 2015 with periods which exceed the estimated flow rate.
22 SPE-188555-MS

Figure 28—Production Performance

After injecting less than 0.1 pore volumes of 400-500 ppm polymer a incremental RF of 2% above
waterflooding was observe in the pilot area. The water cut was reduced from 89% to 85% indicating an
improve in sweep efficiency.

Conclusions
• Fast tracking strategy for Pilot cEOR execution was successfully implemented in Casabe Field.

• Execution time of 2 years, 60% below industry standards for this type of technology exploration
projects.
• Cost of execution according to the originally planned budget

• The pilot project in the block 6 pattern shows a incremental cumulative production of 43% above
the initial plan.
• The oil saturation monitoring in the observer well evidences the movement of oil that had not been
contacted through the injection of water, having an improvement in the areal sweep efficiency
through the injection of polymers.
• Water production decreased from 89% BS&W to 83% BS&W

• Technologies for the correct monitoring and evaluation of the EOR pilot have been implemented.
Some of these technologies were first implemented in Casabe field.
• The pilot project has been operating steadily for almost 3 years.

• A comprehensive monitoring plan has been implemented that allows the correct pilot evaluation.

• Operational problems that have caused some wells to remain inactive for several months have
impacted the pilot's incremental production result.
• It is proven that the polymer injection technology provides a significant improvement in the
recovery factor and improvement of the fluid mobility of the Casabe field, which is evidenced in
the results of the observation well and the incremental in the pilot.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Ecopetrol, S.A and Schlumberger for granting permission to publish this
paper.
SPE-188555-MS 23

Nomenclature
Bbl = Barrel
BO = Barrel of Oil
Bpd = Barrels per day
BS&W = Basic sedimient and water
M = prefix for one thousad
OOIP = Original Oil in Place
Qo = Oil rate, bpd
FID = Final Investment Decision
RF = Recovery Factor
UTC = Unit Total Cost
LDE = Local desplacement Eficiency
CSBE = Casabe

Reference
Casabe Mature Field Revitalization Through an Alliance: A Case Study of Multicompany and Multidiscipline Integration.
L. Márquez, SPE, J. Elphick, SPE, J. Peralta, Schlumberger; R. Amaya, E. Lozano, Ecopetrol S.A"
Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Status – Colombia R. Castro, SPE; G. Amaya, SPE; D. Mercado, SPE; M. Trujillo, SPE;
C. Soto, SPE, H. Perez, SPE; A. Lobo, SPE; A. Ordonez, SPE; J.E. Sand
Mature Field Revitalization Using Plymer Flooding: Palogrande – Cebú Field Case. R. Pérez, R.H. Castro, R. Jimenez,
G.A. Maya, J.M. León, Ecopetrol S.A.; H. Quintero, UIS; J.D. Reyes, A. Mendez, A.F. Castillo, M.P. Romero, F.
Fernández, L.M. Quintero, Ecopetrol S.A. Paper SPE – 185552 – MS.
Chemical EOR Pilot in Mangala Field: Results of initial Polimer food Phase: Amitabh Pandey, MSuresh Kumar, Manish
Kumar Jha, Rohit Tandon, Brennan S Punnapully, Mavriky Kalugin, Ashish Khare & Dennis Beliveau, Cairn Energy
Pty Limited
Selection Methodology for Screening Evaluation of Enhanced Oil Recovery Methods: M. Trujillo, d. Mercado, G. Maya,
R. Castro, C. Soto, H. Perez, V. Gomez and J. Sandoval, Ecopetrol
Enhanced Oil Recovery Pilot Testing Best Practices: G.F Teletzke, R.C Wattenbarger, and J.R Wilkinson, SPE,
ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company
Advances of Polymer Flood in Heavy Oil Recovery: Chang Hong Gao University of Aberdeen
EOR Screening Criteria Revisited - Part 1: Introduction to Screening Criteria and Enhanced Recovery Field Projects.
Taber, J. J., Martin, F. D., & Seright, R. S. (1997, August 1).
EOR Screening Criteria Revisited—Part 2: Applications and Impact of Oil Prices. Taber, J. J., Martin, F. D., & Seright,
R. S. (1997, August 1).
EOR Advisor System: A Comprehensive Approach to EOR Selection. International Petroleum Moreno, J. E., Gurpinar,
O. M., Liu, Y., Al-Kinani, A., & Cakir, N. (2014, December 10).
ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY: Field Planning and Development Strategies: Vladimir Alvarado, Eduardo Manrique
Elsevier, Inc 2010
Modern Chemical Enhanced Oil Recovery: Theory and Practice: James J. Sheng, Ph. D